Key result
In patients with atrial fibrillation and bioprosthetic valve replacement, DOAC therapy was associated with a similar risk of stroke or systemic embolism compared to warfarin (HR 1.02).
Why the study?
There are limited prospective data on the appropriate antithrombotic therapy for East Asian patients with AF and bioprosthetic valve replacement.
Does DOAC-based therapy reduce stroke, systemic embolism, or major bleeding compared to warfarin in Japanese patients with atrial fibrillation and bioprosthetic valve replacement?
Observational (n=894)
Yes
Does DOAC-based therapy reduce stroke, systemic embolism, or major bleeding compared to warfarin in Japanese patients with atrial fibrillation and bioprosthetic valve replacement?
Hazard Ratio: 1.02 (95% CI 0.3–3.41)
Absolute Event Rate: 1.48% vs 2.1%
p-value: p=0.979
In a real-world Japanese registry of patients with atrial fibrillation and bioprosthetic valves, DOACs showed similar rates of stroke/systemic embolism and major bleeding compared to warfarin, suggesting they are a viable alternative.
Observational data on antithrombotic strategies in Japanese AF-BPV patients; leaves open optimal regimens pending randomized trials.
BACKGROUND: Although bioprosthetic valve (BPV) replacements are becoming more common within our aging society, there are limited prospective data on the appropriate antithrombotic therapy for East Asian patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and BPV replacement. Antithrombotic therapy and thrombotic and hemorrhagic event rates in Japanese patients with AF and BPV replacement are investigated. METHODS AND RESULTS: This multicenter, prospective, observational study enrolled patients with BPV replacement and AF. The primary efficacy outcome was stroke or systemic embolism, and the primary safety outcome was major bleeding. Of the 894 patients analyzed, 54.7%, 29.4%, and 9.6%, were treated with warfarin-based therapy, direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC)-based therapy, or antiplatelet therapy without anticoagulants, respectively; 6.3% did not receive any antithrombotic drugs. The mean observation period was 15.3±4.0 months. The event rates for stroke or systemic embolism and major bleeding were 1.95%/year and 1.86%/year, respectively. The multivariate adjusted hazard ratios for DOAC vs. warfarin were 1.02 (95% confidence intervals [CI], 0.30-3.41 [P=0.979]) for systemic embolic events and 0.96 (95% CI, 0.29-3.16 [P=0.945]) for major bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 30% of patients with AF and BPV replacement were treated with DOAC. The risks of major bleeding and stroke or systemic embolism were similar between warfarin- and DOAC-treated patients with AF who had BPV replacement. Treatment with DOACs could be an alternative to warfarin in this population.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
A 2021 study conducted an observational in Atrial fibrillation and bioprosthetic valve replacement (n=894). DOAC-based therapy vs. Warfarin-based therapy was evaluated on Stroke or systemic embolism (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.30-3.41, p=0.979). In patients with atrial fibrillation and bioprosthetic valve replacement, DOAC therapy was associated with a similar risk of stroke or systemic embolism compared to warfarin (HR 1.02).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: